President Obama now holds only a narrow lead over Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, a state thought only a month ago to be safely in the incumbents corner, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University released on Tuesday.

The survey of likely voters conducted from Oct. 12-14, reports the president is ahead of the GOP presidential nominee in the Keystone State by just 4 percentage points, 50 percent to 46 percent. Romney has gained 8 points on Obama since a late-September Quinnipiac poll, when the president led, 54 percent to 42 percent.

The latest survey is representative of national polls that show the race shifting in Romneys favor since the first presidential debate. As in those polls, his gains correlate with increased favorability ratings. In September, just 41 percent of likely voters saw Romney favorably, while 50 percent saw him unfavorably. Now, a plurality of likely voters in the state see the former governor positively, 46 percent to 44 percent.

The survey also squares with another recent Pennsylvania survey that reported Romney gains. A Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll of likely voters, conducted from Oct. 10 through Oct. 14 with a margin of error of 5 percentage points, found Obama leading Romney by only 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent. That was down from an 7-point advantage for the president from the same survey taken in late September.

But another poll conducted on the Philadelphia Inquirers behalf by the Democratic firm Global Strategy Group and Republican group National Research, reported Obama held a far more comfortable edge among likely voters. He led by 8 points there, 50 percent to 42 percent, according to the Inquirer survey, taken from Oct. 4-8.

The Quinnipiac poll reported a gargantuan gender gap between support of the two candidates. Romney led among men in the state, 54 percent to 43 percent, while Obama led among women, 57 percent to 39 percent. Thats a net 29-point difference.

Pennsylvania has traditionally been among the countrys most fiercely contested presidential battlegrounds, even as Democrats have won every quadrennial battle there since George H.W. Bushs victory in 1988. But it has largely been ignored by both campaigns this cycle, who have shifted their focus to new swing states such as Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia. TV-ad spending by either campaign, tracked and compiled by The Hotline, shows Obamas campaign hasnt spent a dollar over the air there since July; Romneys campaign has yet to make a single ad buy in Pennsylvania in the general election.

However, Ann Romney told Philadelphia radio station WPHT on Monday: "You know, the debate was huge and weve seen our numbers move all across the country, but in particular, Pennsylvania is in play, so were here and were fighting."

Its not surprising that if the general-election race is close, Pennsylvania would be competitive. Obama won the state by 10 points four years ago, but George W. Bush lost it narrowly by just over 2 points in 2004.

Whether the Romney campaign will make a last-ditch effort to win the state remains unclear. Obamas lead has shrunk, but it remains larger in the Keystone State than in battlegrounds such as Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia. And advertising in Pennsylvania is both expensive and inefficient, particularly in the sprawling Philadelphia media market. An investment capable of moving numbers would likely cost millions of dollars, and advertising in Philadelphia means paying for voters in southern New Jersey and Delaware to see the ads (each part of the citys media market), both of which are safe Democratic seats.

The Romney campaign has already calculated it can reach 270 electoral votes by winning some combination of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Making a late play for Pennsylvania would siphon money from efforts in each of them  although its possible that, for strategic reasons, Romneys campaign decides to make Obamas campaign put up ads of its own there.

Quinnipiac University's latest poll surveyed 1,519 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The poll used live interviewers, who called land lines and cell phones.

Sadly, Pennsylvania’s vote is dictated by democrat controlled Philadelphia. Here in the west, a few Obama signs have popped up, but I have seen a TON Of “stop the war on coal, fire Obama” signs and a TON of Romney/Ryan signs. During a weekend trip to the central part of the state, the same thing, the coal miner won’t be fooled again. I think the vote will be closer this year, and everyone in the central part of the state needs to vote!!!! That didn’t happen in 2008. However, I can’t get too excited or too optomistic about an outcome different than 2008, just a closer contest.

Romney will win the majority of the votes outside of Philly and Pburgh.

The pubbies were going to change the electoral college distribution along the lines of Nebraska, according to congressional district with the additional two votes going to the overall gross vote winner.

They had the votes but not the balls {didn't want to be called racists}.

My state senator, Kim Ward, was pushing it but Gleason, the pubbie state chairman, fought against it.

He should be booted.

If they passed that distribution model, Romney would have won at least 15 electoral college votes with the other 6 probably going to obummer.

Even if he wins Pennsylvania, make him work for it. The more effort he expends keeping states previously thought safe, the less he can spare for the battleground states. But by all means, do all you can to make him lose Pennsylvania.

Oh, I am doing my part. I want to see Obama be forced to spend millions in PA he didn’t expect to spend. Let those liberal 1%’ers, you know, the ones who NEVER donate to the free phone crowd, spend their money here. There is a definite tide turning, but..........Philadelphia and its corruption and its democrat machine is very hard to defeat. Bob Casey is being forced to spend lots of money in an election the experts said was his without any effort.

Considering Keystoners looked the other way in 2008 when 0bama insulted them (”bitter clingers”) and openly stated his intent to cripple the coal industry, not to mention John Murtha`s deriding his constituents as “rednecks,” it`s clear that screw is in there rather tightly.

While I’m not an expert, I’m a life long resident of Pennsylvania.......It’s the union machine and the welfare crowd. The union machine is convinced the steel mills will reopen if ONLY the rich people stop making a profit. Union bosses tell them that all of the time, while the union bosses vacation in the Cayman Islands. Well, except the coal miners who voted for Obama in 2008 and are not going to make that mistake this year. The central part of PA is filled with hard working people. Miners. Farmers. Small Business owners. The city of Pittsburgh is filled with the welfare crowd who, sadly, are killing each other, we hear about a shooting every day and the rich liberals living in the trendy urban areas who “feel good” that the poor people are being given more. Of course, they don’t give them anything, they just “Feel good” about it. Some of the more conservative bedroom communites have been inundated with East Coasters, moving here because of our growing medical industry and trying to bring with them their insane liberal politics. Central PA (it was James Carville who referred to central PA as Alabama) didn’t turn out so well to vote for McCain in 2008. I think it will be different this year but enough to overcome the “dead” vote in Philly? Not so sure. But, give it a try. Just vote!

Now consider all those coal miners and others who are democrats who are against this regime in addition to the very lopsided numbers going against Obama. One other tidbit was that the percentage of registered voters voting in 2004 was more than 2008.

The pubbies were going to change the electoral college distribution along the lines of Nebraska, according to congressional district with the additional two votes going to the overall gross vote winner. They had the votes but not the balls {didn't want to be called racists}. My state senator, Kim Ward, was pushing it but Gleason, the pubbie state chairman, fought against it.

The Philly dems threatened to use their "get out the vote" resources to go after Republicans in neighboring Repub-held districts. Since under the new rules, they would have needed just 50%+1 in the Philly area, the Dems could have afforded to spend ALL their resources in districts they thought they could take.

The PA Repubs thought more about any risk to their seats, than about the nation.

Can we give Philadelphia to New Jersy? If we could PA would be one of the brightest RED states in the country.

Until a Republican has the balls to question the 100% PLUS turnout that typically occurs in Philadelphia it will be hard to win a national election. Somehow, despite the population of Philadelphia decreasing dramatically over the years, the vote total out of Philly remains constant!?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.